Debunking Charlie Kirk’s Jan. 31 NBC op-ed on Trump SOTU

First, Kirk’s op-ed can be found here.

Second, as a regular reader of Kirk on Twitter and a watcher of his videos, I can say with some authority this op-ed for NBC is significantly different from those posts in one key aspect: he provides or aims to provide evidence for his claims in this op-ed. In other words, NBC has higher standards than Turning Point USA’S own publications. See my other Medium posts.

But even with the mere presence of links, still Kirk misleads, omits, and continues to be imprecise with numbers and facts easily checked. Much like President Trump.

On to the analysis.

Kirk begins by laying out the accomplishments of the president’s administration, noting three things: “As he noted on Tuesday night, his leadership has led to $1.5 trillion dollars in total tax cuts and over 3 million Americans have already been awarded a bonus or pay raise thanks to the new tax plan. More than 2.4 million new American jobs were created during his first year in office.”

The first is accurate, though one must point out, as the link to NPR does, that the tax cuts, without sufficient economic growth, will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit. Experts have said they don’t think the growth the GOP claims will happen.

The second is slightly off. The second link is to a Techcrunch.com story that quotes Trump’ s speech: “Since we passed tax cuts, roughly three million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses. Many of them, thousands and thousands of dollars per worker and it’s getting more every month, every week.” Kirk is sloppy with his words here, adding pay raise.

The third is not accurate. Kirk links here to a fact-check done by NBC that specifically states that while the the number of jobs created since the election is “technically correct… Trump’s first year in office was marked by 2.1 million jobs being added to the economy — the slowest year of job growth in six years — while the other job gains came under President Barack Obama.” Again, Kirk is sloppy with his claim by making it within context of Trump’s first year.

This sloppiness takes away from the credibility of Kirk’s next claim: “There is no question that our nation is far better off today than it was in 2016, or that these accomplishments are a result of the leadership and policies of President Trump.” The tax reform and bonuses (and yes, many have also received pay raises) happened after the tax package was signed into law. And yes, many companies suggested they made these moves because of that. But these accomplishments don’t make the case for the nation being “far better off” than 2016. And the evidence for how policies — posed as different than legislation — have made America better is not present.

Kirk then tries to tie the sitting of Democrats during the speech to the lowering of black employment: “Democrats quite literally refused to stand up in recognition of the values that make America great, and sat, frowning, when President Trump talked about the recent economic boom, the fact that unemployment has been at a 45-year low and black unemployment is at an all-time low…”

On the first claim, again, Kirk is sloppy. His link is to a Reuters article about home sales that states: “Other data on Thursday showed the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits rose from a 45-year low last week.” I bold the important words here. Filing for unemployment benefits is a different stat than “unemployment.” CNBC does report that “the labor market is near full employment, with the jobless rate at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent.”

On the second claim, if we are just interested in the facts, not the the claim Democrats were being “anti-American” by not standing, many commentators have pointed out that Trump taking credit for the black unemployment rate is not ethical. That rate has been on the down slide for eight years. The CNN story Kirk links to shows the context of this number within all races and does not suggest Trump can or should take credit.

As an aside, Kirk quoting CNN as a source is beyond a farce as he has suggested more than once CNN is fake news. Here is one example. Here is another.

Kirk then continues the farcical hypocrisy: “ It is clear that the Democratic leadership does not want America to succeed, simply because the president is Donald Trump.” Replace the party and the president and Kirk’s tirades against Obama now come into clarity.

Next Kirk paraphrases Trump's claims on ISIS territory freed: “Take foreign policy, for instance: ISIS has been forced from nearly all the territory it once held…” Trump said in his speech: “One year later, I am proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and in Syria, and in other locations as well. But there is much more work to be done.”

Fact-checkers at Politifact have said this elides the gains under Obama: “But Trump’s words link the most recent gains too closely to actions taken during his time in office. The area controlled by the Islamic State shrunk by 89 percent during his tenure. The success also built upon strategy and attacks launched under Obama.”

It’s hard to judge Kirk’s statement about Democrats’ reaction to Trump’s reference and invitation to the parents of Otto Warmbier. His parents did not dismiss that group as they met earlier that day with Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who is one of the co-sponsors of legislation that would increase sanctions on North Korea, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer. But Otto’s father has been critical of the Obama administration.

The rest of Kirk’s op-ed are opinions grounded in assumptions that are not accurate. For example, he writes “voters [in 2016] wanted a president who would represent them and put ‘We the People’ back in charge…” As has been noted, Trump lost the general election vote by roughly 3 percent.

Next Kirk writes, “his administration has even showed an eagerness to compromise with Democrats.” That may be what the president says at times, but his actions have not been anywhere in that ballpark. Consider this analysis on the “compromises” Trump has proposed on immigration.

Next, Kirk says that “the Democrats are totally out of touch with middle-class Americans.” If we just go by approval ratings, Democrats seem to have a substantial edge on a generic ballot. If we go by opinions of the tax reform, “middle class” Americans note its flaws.

These last few claims are the kind of vague claims Kirk traffics in, mainly preaching to a choir of college students devoted to him and his group. But these claims and others in this op-ed play loose with facts, omit others, and present a distorted picture, far from a generous context for understanding.

This is not what I would want a leader of college students doing. It is also not a good example of argument and this op-ed would be assessed poorly in my class.